When did British HO become possible?

[OnTheBranchline]

Just wondering for the general history timeline of UK model railways - so if OO gauge only started because they couldn't make the motors small enough to fit inside an HO body back then, when did it become possible to do it (but no manufacturers wanted to switch)?

[HSB]

British H0 models were first produced commercially around 100 years ago by Stewart-Reidpath. It was originally called 00 and ran on 16mm (5/8th") gauge.

 

Edited February 15, 2023 by HSB

[Ian Simpson]

If I had to pick a decade, I'd say the 1950s.  It's probably no coincidence that Tri-ang launched commercial TT in 1957.

Having said that, I'm not sure it was just the size of the motors that made OO more attractive to manufacturers. I think the width of outside cylinders might also have been an issue - "narrow gauge"  4 mm gave more room outside the wheelbase for oversized cylinders.

Edited February 15, 2023 by Ian Simpson
The usual typos.

[spamcan61]

4 minutes ago, Ian Simpson said:

If I had to pick a decade, I'd say the 1950s.  It's probably no coincidence that Tri-ang launched commercial TT in 1957.

Having said that, I'm not sure it was just the size of the motors that made OO more attractive to manufacturers. I think the width of outside cylinders might also have been an issue - "narrow gauge"  4 mm gave more room outside the wheelbase for oversized cylinders.

Reminds me - must measure my TT:120 A4 over the cylinders to see if they've had to ease them out a bit.  Looks OK anyway.

[BachelorBoy]

This is interesting. It doesn't directly answer your question, but it seems it wasn't just a matter of motors. https://doubleogauge.com/a-history-of-oo-gauge/

[Nearholmer]

If you pick almost any model railway magazine from shortly after the Bing tabletop railway was introduced in the early 1920s through to the introduction of Hornby Dublo in the late 1930s, you will find that it contains at least one letter or article that touches on the question of whether modellers in Britain using 16.5mm gauge track should be working to 3.5mm/ft or 4mm/ft, sometimes reams of fierce argument, and an advert from someone selling 3.5mm/ft models. To me, it seems that the debate was swaying in the direction of 4mm/ft, and that HD sealed that.

 

It was sealed in direction due to a combination of factors, motor size being one, and the “front to front” measurement over wheels, and clearances behind outside valve gear being another. Very careful craftsmen could do the necessary in 3.5mm/ft (as an aside, someone was even working in 2mm/ft in the 1930s), but not the average amateur, and crucially the tolerances applicable in mass production of a high class technical toy didn’t allow it, even with larger Continental prototypes.

 

I agree with others that motor technology and manufacturing tolerances “got there” in the 50s, hence TT, and very shortly afterwards commercial 000/N.

 

 

Edited February 15, 2023 by Nearholmer

[sncf231e]

Interesting question. The same question could be asked about British N, TT, 0 and 1 gauge. For some reason the correct scale/gauge combination seems not to be of interest in the UK. See my e-book on gauge and scale: http://sncf231e.nl/gauge-and-scale/

Regards

Fred

 

[D9020 Nimbus]

Fleischmann made a "Warship" diesel and Bulleid coaches round about 1980 and both were too wide. They never made the proposed "West Country" class Blackmore Vale so we don't know what sort of job they would have made of it. Most of the Lima HO gauge British locos were also too wide. 
 

Possibly the first "British" loco to be produced correctly to HO scale would the the Roco NS 500/600 class shunter derived from the LMS loco—or (earlier) perhaps the Hornby-Acho SNCF version of the USA tank (done more recently by both Jouef/Rivarossi and REE Modèlles).

[The Johnster]

I'd concur that the ability to make volume produced H0 Brit-outline RTR, at least to the standards that 00 was being produced to in those days, was there in the mid to late 50s.  But with the two big players dominating the market so overwhelmingly and promoting 00, there was little chance of it happening then.  There were enough problems with wheel profile/flangeway and coupling compatibility with 4mm, without introducing another scale; Triang went for 1:100 TT, another compromise, but a response to smaller homes.  TT stood for Table Top, and that was probably the end of any hope of 3.5mm Brit-outline at that time.

 

In the 60s, Hornby Dublo failed and Trix adopted a scale of 3.8mm on 00 track; this was in the days when RTR (including Trix, who were modelling to neither scale) and plastic kits were marketed as '00/H0' without saying which it was, to indicate that items to both scales (and Trix's 3.8mm) could be used on the same track at the same time, which is all most trainset buyers wanted to know.  Trix was coupling and profile compatible with HD.  I had a CKD Trix Western, which looked ok pulling Triang scale length mk1s, because real Westerns are a lot taller than real mk1 coaches.

 

Also worth remembering that setrack used 13" curves in those days, and major compromises were made to get both 00 and H0 scale steam locos with outside cylinders around them, though of course matters were worse in 00, but I am unable to comment on what bearing this might have had on any decisions by manufacturers to maintain the 00 status quo.

 

Another chance to introduce UK-outline H0 was in the late70s, when the 'new kids', Mainline, Airfix, and LIma, entered the fray.  Trix had never made much impression on Triang/Triang Hornby/Hornby's overall dominance, and that company was in a morass of outdated products that sat too high off the track, had smaller centre driving wheels, boiler skirts, no detail below the running plate, and crude moulded toolings; their core trainset market was fine with them but few 'serious' modellers would look at them, preferring whitemetal kits that were just a crude beneath the running plates but sat at the right height and were more to scale, at the cost of minimum 2' radius curves.  They were vulnerable to competition, in a market that was demanding daylight beneath the boilers, brake detail, separate handrails, better finishes, and a more generally 'scale' approach.  Lima came on to the scene with H0 models, which sadly weren't very good; had Airfix and Mainline joined them but retained the tension-lock couplings for trainset compatibility with Triang Hornby, things nowadays might be very different!  H0 at 3.5mm/foot would be the default RTR scale, with the gauge, scale, and size benefits that that infers, and quite possibly European manufacturers would have started making accurate UK models (Rivarvossi dipped their toes into this).

 

But it didn't happen, and the reasons are not entirely clear to me.  Lima abandoned UK H0 fairly quickly for 4mm 00, and Airfix & Mainline never attempted anything else.  Perhaps it was felt that, with the rising popularity of N in those days, there was no market hunger for another British scale; everybody was used to 00 and it was no doubt safer in marketing terms to leave things as they were.  There were some fairly dire mechs in  those days, the horrible pancake motors, spur gears, and traction tyres to interfere with what was usually already flaky pickup performance, but this was the period when the foundations for our current hi-fi 00 (a contradiction in terms, but we're so used to it we have forgotten to be dissatisfied with it) were laid.

 

The British RTR trade is now completely wedded to and invested in 00, even the more recent entrants who are attempting to produce higher fier models than the established players.  Brit-outline H0 is feasible for any of the current players, all they have to do is ask the Chinese to make it and the Chinese will make it, whatever size and to whatever dimensions and with as many or as few separate parts as you want.  My Hornby W4 Peckett has a motor small enough for an 0-6-0 in H0, and will pull eleven mineral wagons full of real coal, so the size and power is there already in a mass produced cheap (but very good nonetheless) throwaway motor and idler gearbox.

 

I reckon the future might be to go the other way, RTR 18.83 gauge  but with code 75 track profiles and similar to current coarse scale 00 wheel profiles, clearances, and flangeways.  If anyone makes it, Peco will make track and turnouts for it, and 00 will be obsolete overnight.  As the success of RTR companies depends on us buying new models, and we will be clamouring to buy these scale 4mm models to replace our 00 stuff (price is irrelevant to a hobby demographic with plenty of disposable, and we like bright shiny new thing make it all better despite what we say we think about it) will be good for sales, and sales are good for profits, and profits are good for investors, the real customers.  And if it's good for the investors, it'll happen!  There is no reason that a 4mm 18.83 gauge model should be any more expensive than a 00 one, in fact the design compromises will be lessened, fitting separate parts will be easier for those Chinese girls with their famously nimble little fingers (or is that racial stereotyping these days?) and production costs might even be a tad lower, but the percieved value to the market, us, will be higher and the stuff'll fly off the shelves like blackbirds off a ploughed and sown cornfield when the farmer pulls the shotgun trigger!

 

At my age and low income, I'm stuck with 00, though...

 

 

[OnTheBranchline]

1 hour ago, The Johnster said:

I'd concur that the ability to make volume produced H0 Brit-outline RTR, at least to the standards that 00 was being produced to in those days, was there in the mid to late 50s.  But with the two big players dominating the market so overwhelmingly and promoting 00, there was little chance of it happening then.  There were enough problems with wheel profile/flangeway and coupling compatibility with 4mm, without introducing another scale; Triang went for 1:100 TT, another compromise, but a response to smaller homes.  TT stood for Table Top, and that was probably the end of any hope of 3.5mm Brit-outline at that time.

 

In the 60s, Hornby Dublo failed and Trix adopted a scale of 3.8mm on 00 track; this was in the days when RTR (including Trix, who were modelling to neither scale) and plastic kits were marketed as '00/H0' without saying which it was, to indicate that items to both scales (and Trix's 3.8mm) could be used on the same track at the same time, which is all most trainset buyers wanted to know.  Trix was coupling and profile compatible with HD.  I had a CKD Trix Western, which looked ok pulling Triang scale length mk1s, because real Westerns are a lot taller than real mk1 coaches.

 

Also worth remembering that setrack used 13" curves in those days, and major compromises were made to get both 00 and H0 scale steam locos with outside cylinders around them, though of course matters were worse in 00, but I am unable to comment on what bearing this might have had on any decisions by manufacturers to maintain the 00 status quo.

 

Another chance to introduce UK-outline H0 was in the late70s, when the 'new kids', Mainline, Airfix, and LIma, entered the fray.  Trix had never made much impression on Triang/Triang Hornby/Hornby's overall dominance, and that company was in a morass of outdated products that sat too high off the track, had smaller centre driving wheels, boiler skirts, no detail below the running plate, and crude moulded toolings; their core trainset market was fine with them but few 'serious' modellers would look at them, preferring whitemetal kits that were just a crude beneath the running plates but sat at the right height and were more to scale, at the cost of minimum 2' radius curves.  They were vulnerable to competition, in a market that was demanding daylight beneath the boilers, brake detail, separate handrails, better finishes, and a more generally 'scale' approach.  Lima came on to the scene with H0 models, which sadly weren't very good; had Airfix and Mainline joined them but retained the tension-lock couplings for trainset compatibility with Triang Hornby, things nowadays might be very different!  H0 at 3.5mm/foot would be the default RTR scale, with the gauge, scale, and size benefits that that infers, and quite possibly European manufacturers would have started making accurate UK models (Rivarvossi dipped their toes into this).

 

But it didn't happen, and the reasons are not entirely clear to me.  Lima abandoned UK H0 fairly quickly for 4mm 00, and Airfix & Mainline never attempted anything else.  Perhaps it was felt that, with the rising popularity of N in those days, there was no market hunger for another British scale; everybody was used to 00 and it was no doubt safer in marketing terms to leave things as they were.  There were some fairly dire mechs in  those days, the horrible pancake motors, spur gears, and traction tyres to interfere with what was usually already flaky pickup performance, but this was the period when the foundations for our current hi-fi 00 (a contradiction in terms, but we're so used to it we have forgotten to be dissatisfied with it) were laid.

 

The British RTR trade is now completely wedded to and invested in 00, even the more recent entrants who are attempting to produce higher fier models than the established players.  Brit-outline H0 is feasible for any of the current players, all they have to do is ask the Chinese to make it and the Chinese will make it, whatever size and to whatever dimensions and with as many or as few separate parts as you want.  My Hornby W4 Peckett has a motor small enough for an 0-6-0 in H0, and will pull eleven mineral wagons full of real coal, so the size and power is there already in a mass produced cheap (but very good nonetheless) throwaway motor and idler gearbox.

 

I reckon the future might be to go the other way, RTR 18.83 gauge  but with code 75 track profiles and similar to current coarse scale 00 wheel profiles, clearances, and flangeways.  If anyone makes it, Peco will make track and turnouts for it, and 00 will be obsolete overnight.  As the success of RTR companies depends on us buying new models, and we will be clamouring to buy these scale 4mm models to replace our 00 stuff (price is irrelevant to a hobby demographic with plenty of disposable, and we like bright shiny new thing make it all better despite what we say we think about it) will be good for sales, and sales are good for profits, and profits are good for investors, the real customers.  And if it's good for the investors, it'll happen!  There is no reason that a 4mm 18.83 gauge model should be any more expensive than a 00 one, in fact the design compromises will be lessened, fitting separate parts will be easier for those Chinese girls with their famously nimble little fingers (or is that racial stereotyping these days?) and production costs might even be a tad lower, but the percieved value to the market, us, will be higher and the stuff'll fly off the shelves like blackbirds off a ploughed and sown cornfield when the farmer pulls the shotgun trigger!

 

At my age and low income, I'm stuck with 00, though...

 

 

OO gauge for the UK feels like the use of Fahrenheit temperature measurement in the US or the GWR using broad gauge compared to the standard gauge - I know “that’s the way we’ve always done it” but it looks odd and hard to justify in the grand scheme of things…

Edited February 15, 2023 by OnTheBranchline

[Andy Hayter]

3 hours ago, D9020 Nimbus said:

Fleischmann made a "Warship" diesel and Bulleid coaches round about 1980 and both were too wide.

 

But were these H0 (1:87) or the more common at the time 1:80 - ish?  With very often coaches reduced to around 1:100 by reducing the number of compartments.

[Andy Hayter]

I also remember at about that time Rivarossi produced an LMS 4-4-0 (ex MR) and some coaches.  Also probably to around 1:80 which is what they seemed to be using for H0 at around that time in Europe.

[melmoth]

26 minutes ago, Andy Hayter said:

I also remember at about that time Rivarossi produced an LMS 4-4-0 (ex MR) and some coaches.  Also probably to around 1:80 which is what they seemed to be using for H0 at around that time in Europe.

 

You might be thinking of their Parallel boiled/unrebuilt Royal Scot. I think both RM and MRC reported this at the time as being around 3.8mm/ft

[Andy Hayter]

14 minutes ago, melmoth said:

 

You might be thinking of their Parallel boiled/unrebuilt Royal Scot. I think both RM and MRC reported this at the time as being around 3.8mm/ft

You are almost certainly right - memory being what it is - but it was advertised as being H0.

 

Therein lies the problem.  Many models were sold as "H0" at the time (and not just the UK ones) but were in reality built to a larger scale and shortened bodies on at least some of the stock.

[sncf231e]

RivaRossi Royal Scot  ( from set no 312) versus Hornby LMS compound (R355):

 

RivaRossi never mentioned scale (for none of their models), they only mentioned gauge.

 

Regards

Fred

Edited February 15, 2023 by sncf231e

[pete_mcfarlane]

6 hours ago, D9020 Nimbus said:

Fleischmann made a "Warship" diesel and Bulleid coaches round about 1980 and both were too wide.

I thought it was the Marklin Warship that was too wide (due to reusing bits of an existing V200 model - the British version being a foot narrower than the German one). 

[HSB]

The Fleischmann Warship is basically the right length but overscale in width and height. The wheels actually scale out at halfway between the correct diameters for the Warship and the V200.

[BachelorBoy]

Japanese HO (1/80 on 16.5mm track) is popular for modelling the main, 3'6" network (Shinkansens are standard gauge)

 

I think that means the track is a scale 4'4", which is even less accurate than OO.

 

 

 

 

[rogerzilla]

OO should really have been taken out and shot decades ago but (especially in the days before CAD, when it was harder to shrink existing designs) the investment in design and tooling was too great for Hornby et al.

 

It does seem odd that reviews pick out tiny errors on models while ignoring the elephant in the room.

 

On the plus side, 4mm models look a bit more impressive than 3.5mm models.

[Phil Parker]

13 minutes ago, rogerzilla said:

It does seem odd that reviews pick out tiny errors on models while ignoring the elephant in the room.

 

It would save us a lot of time to cut'n'paste a paragraph whining that the model should be either HO or P4 into every review. Whether the readers would apprciate wasting space with it every time, is another matter.

[woodenhead]

3 hours ago, Phil Parker said:

 

It would save us a lot of time to cut'n'paste a paragraph whining that the model should be either HO or P4 into every review. Whether the readers would apprciate wasting space with it every time, is another matter.

Surely now we could implement Chat GPT into RMWeb and it could do this for us automatically with a bit of nuance so it doesn't look like cut n paste.  It could do a lot of the initial responses on new models being announced and would save us a lot of time each Bachmann quarterly announcement.

[Mikkel]

54 minutes ago, woodenhead said:

Surely now we could implement Chat GPT into RMWeb

 

>>>How do you know we aren't already doing that?

>>>How do you know you aren't the only real person here?

>>>AI is now so intelligent that you would not know the difference.

>>>Sea otters resemble layer cake in wellington boots. 

 

[woodenhead]

1 minute ago, Mikkel said:

 

>>>How do you know we aren't already doing that?

>>>How do you know you aren't the only real person here?

>>>AI is now so intelligent that you would not know the difference.

>>>Sea otters resemble layer cake in wellington boots. 

 

>>>>You assume I know I am real, perhaps I am not real even though I perceive myself to be.

>>>>Existential crisis mode initiated, wiping models, importing models, learning models.............Completed!

 

>>>>Hi I'm new here, Woodenhead is my name and I an interested in module railways